Arvind Kejriwal is Seeking Legal Remedy or He’s Bench Hunting

Spread love

Delhi HC Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya declines to move the CBI revision petition — a ruling that reinforces roster discipline and raises pointed questions about AAP’s consistency on judicial credibility

By ASHISH SOOD

New Delhi, March 21, 2026 — The recent development in the excise policy case, in which the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, declined the request of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to transfer the matter from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another bench, has once again brought the issue of judicial propriety, political conduct, and public perception of courts into sharp focus. The controversy is not merely about a procedural request, it raises larger questions about consistency in political positions, respect for judicial processes, and the thin line between legal remedy and perceived bench hunting.

According to the order passed on the administrative side, the Chief Justice made it clear that the petition had been assigned as per the existing roster and that any question of recusal must be decided by the judge concerned herself. The court also observed that there was no reason to transfer the matter administratively.

This response follows a letter written by Kejriwal requesting that the case be heard by a different bench, claiming that the present bench had not granted relief to any accused person in the excise policy matter and had already expressed prima facie views that could affect the outcome of the revision petition filed by the CBI.

At the heart of the controversy lies the sequence of events in the excise policy case. A trial court had earlier discharged Kejriwal and others, and even ordered action against certain investigative officials. At that stage, leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party described the order as proof that the truth had prevailed and that their faith in the judiciary stood vindicated.

However, the legal process did not end there. The investigative agency exercised its statutory right to challenge the discharge order before the High Court by filing a criminal revision petition. The matter, as per the roster, came before the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. It is at this stage that the request for transfer was made.

The argument put forward in the letter suggested that the bench had earlier expressed detailed views on the case and had not granted relief to any accused, thereby creating an apprehension of bias. While the law certainly allows a litigant to raise concerns about impartiality, the manner and timing of such a request inevitably invite scrutiny.

Delhi: BJP Rides ‘Enter The Dragon’ to Tame Arvind Kejriwal

In a system governed by rules and roster allocation, seeking a change of bench without demonstrable conflict of interest can be seen as an attempt to choose a forum perceived to be more favourable. This is where the criticism that Kejriwal wants to “have his cake and eat it too” gains traction. When the trial court passed an order in his favour, the decision was hailed as a victory of justice and fairness. But when the same judicial system allowed the investigative agency to challenge that order, the tone changed to one of suspicion and protest. Such selective confidence risks undermining the very institutional credibility that political leaders often claim to defend.

The concept often referred to as “bench hunting” or “forum shopping” is viewed seriously in judicial practice. Courts have repeatedly held that litigants cannot insist on being heard by a bench of their choice, as that would erode the discipline of roster allocation and open the door to manipulation. The Chief Justice’s refusal to transfer the case reinforces the principle that judicial work is assigned according to established procedure, not according to the preference of any party, however prominent.

It is also worth noting that the Chief Justice did not dismiss the concern outright but clarified the correct legal position that recusal is a matter for the judge concerned, not for administrative intervention unless exceptional circumstances exist. This approach reflects the balance that courts try to maintain between ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of procedural remedies.

Public figures, especially those who have held constitutional office, carry an added responsibility in the way they approach the judiciary. When a leader repeatedly asserts faith in the legal system, that faith must extend to all stages of the process, not only to those that produce favourable outcomes. The strength of the rule of law lies precisely in the fact that decisions can go either way, and that every order is open to challenge through prescribed legal channels.

By seeking transfer of the case on grounds that may appear speculative, Kejriwal has exposed himself to the charge of inconsistency. Critics argue that instead of facing the revision petition on merits before the High Court, the move creates an impression that the focus is shifting from legal arguments to the choice of forum. Whether or not that perception is justified, it is a perception that inevitably affects public trust.

At the same time, the episode also highlights the resilience of the judicial system. The firm yet measured response from the Chief Justice demonstrates that institutional processes remain intact despite political pressure or public controversy. The message is clear: relief or rejection will depend on the merits of the case, not on the identity of the litigant or the bench hearing it.

In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the true test of one’s faith in the judiciary is the willingness to accept its procedures even when they are inconvenient. Having publicly expressed confidence in the courts, Kejriwal would do well to allow the legal process to run its course before the High Court rather than giving room to allegations of seeking a favourable bench or creating a narrative of injustice in advance.

Ultimately, the credibility of both political leadership and the judicial system depends on consistency, restraint, and respect for due process, the principles that must hold firm, especially in cases that attract intense public and political attention.

(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are author’s own. The author is Minister for Home, Education, Power and Urban Development, Delhi Government)